Posted under General
forum #71454 touched on it, but after noticing that forum #74466 was deleted, there really needs to be a way to see who deleted what forum thread on the Mod Action page. It can even be like how deleted pools get displayed, with the forum title and the name of the person who deleted it.
The sooner this happens the better, lest we have another rantuyetmai going on a rampage, deleting threads he/she deems unnecessary.
Updated by Log
I deleted it for the very reasons stated in the thread.
He posted the thread 5 minutes after he discovered the tag existed and it was still being discussed as to how it should be used. We do not need multiple threads to discuss the same thing, doing this makes things far far harder on jxh who doesn't actively track every thread as it's posted, he just makes judgement calls at the end of each thread. If one thread reaches one conclusion and another thread reaches another he has to undo aliases or mass edits.
Serlo just needs to stop being daniel 2.0 and no threads will need to be deleted in the first place.
I didn't know it was you who deleted the thread, and I'm certainly not implying that you're pulling a rantuyetmai. Please don't take it the wrong way.
However, the lack of transparency regarding thread deletions is a legitimate concern, and with the barrier of entry being low for janitors, there's bound to be someone who will abuse their powers.
On a related note, should janitors even be able delete forum posts/threads in the first place?
It doesn't make much sense that janitors can permanently delete forum threads, yet, don't have the ability to lock them. This leads me to believe this was done unintentionally, as the fallout of letting janitors edit comments (I filed a bug report on this a while ago).
The same also goes for pools and wikis: Why can janitors delete pools, but not delete wiki entries? I'm not saying we should be able to, but there should be a consistency with what defines a janitor's role.
The only reason janitors don't have the ability to delete wiki pages is nobody's ever asked for janitors to have the ability to do so. I don't think albert would have any problem allowing it but there's never been a reason to open it up to janitors. Wikis haven't ever needed immediate deletion, unlike comments and forum threads.
I dunno, forum #71459 sounds like your personal rendering of why janitors can edit/delete threads, and not anything in the way of an official explanation or general consensus.
And as far as the wiki deletions, that'd make sense.
But I guess the overall issue I have here is that I don't think janitors should have the ability to permanently delete content from the site. Mostly due to, as Moose said, the low barrier of entry.
This'd imply that I don't agree with janitors being able to delete comments and pools. Their abilities should be limited to the scope of why they were made site staff in the first place: approving/deleting posts, which is auditable and reversible.
Updated
We did have a problem with spambots creating threads to advertise shoes and whatnot, and the old batch of moderators were never around to delete them. Hell, due to a severe rash of vandalism and the mods sitting on their hands, janitors were given mod-like powers (including the ability to ban users) just to pick up the slack. The ability to delete comments and threads may be a residual effect from those days.
Since then, the inactive mods have been demoted, and Albert has added three new mods: EB, NWF Renim, and Shinjidude. I know the latter two are active on the forum, so the ability for janitors to edit/delete comments, threads, and pools can probably be safely removed. Like you said, janitors should concern themselves with only post approval and deletion.
Regardless of what happens, forum thread deletions still need to show up on the Mod Action page.
I'm all in favor of adding accountability and reversibility to these sorts of actions for users at all ranks (I'd also really like to see it done for pool deletions, since we are sometimes a bit gung ho with them, even if 99% of them are justified in the end).
That said, I don't think I've seen any particular abuse with these sorts of actions, nor do I think that nerfing janitors' powers would necessarily be helpful unless we have a real need to do it. In a lot of ways, having more eyes on things that need moderated with the power of taking care of them is a good thing.
Only if we see someone abuse this power (which adding accountability will allow us to do) should individual users be confronted, and if necessary, additional measures taken.
This is all just my opinion of course.
Shinjidude said:
I'm all in favor of adding accountability and reversibility to these sorts of actions for users at all ranks (I'd also really like to see it done for pool deletions, since we are sometimes a bit gung ho with them, even if 99% of them are justified in the end).
The Mod Action page already keeps track of pool deletions, though there's no way of bringing them back since deletion is permanent.
That said, I don't think I've seen any particular abuse with these sorts of actions, nor do I think that nerfing janitors' powers would necessarily be helpful unless we have a real need to do it. In a lot of ways, having more eyes on things that need moderated with the power of taking care of them is a good thing.
Only if we see someone abuse this power (which adding accountability will allow us to do) should individual users be confronted, and if necessary, additional measures taken.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
I've seen firsthand what happens when you give a person with an agenda power. When he still continues after being told what he did was unacceptable. This isn't like deleting a post; when you delete a thread, a comment, a pool, it's permanent and damn hard to fix. I would much rather defuse the problem now before it blows up in our faces later.
Log said:
Oh good, my message to albert bitching about rantuyaklandkldj actually accomplished half of what I wanted, even if it didn't accomplish the important part; removing him from the mod team.
I made a formal request to remove him from the staff (forum #74327) but nothing more was done. What exactly did get accomplished though?
Hillside_Moose said:
The Mod Action page already keeps track of pool deletions, though there's no way of bringing them back since deletion is permanent.
...
This isn't like deleting a post; when you delete a thread, a comment, a pool, it's permanent and damn hard to fix.
This is why I mentioned reversibility above. It'd be nice to be able to view and undelete pools and threads as we can posts after the fact if moderators later judge a pool or thread was worth keeping after all.
As for the whole person with a malicious agenda thing, I'm not sure that I've seen a problem here. Log deleted what he claimed was a redundant thread. Without being able to go back and check it's hard to say how redundant it was, but it is typically good policy to keep things organized within their own threads, and enforcing that policy isn't what I'd consider a malicious agenda.
That said, if he had the ability to, locking might have been a better option, since in that case it's obvious what was said in the redundant thread prior to action taking place, and a message can be left in that case to switch the conversation back to where it belongs. This route still leads to a cluttered first page on the forum listing, but I guess that's the trade-off.
Updated
Shinjidude said:
This is why I mentioned reversibility above.
Oh, I didn't see you mentioned reversibility. That's what I get for writing at the heat of the moment. Still, I'm not sure if expanding janitor powers is a good thing, since it's largely outside their duties of approving/deleting posts. Like I said, janitors didn't have these powers before; the reason they have them now is probably a residual effect from the vandalism spree.
As for the whole person with a malicious agenda thing, I'm not sure that I've seen a problem here. Log deleted what he claimed was a redundant thread. Without being able to go back and check it's hard to say how redundant it was, but it is typically good policy to keep things organized within their own threads, and enforcing that policy isn't what I'd consider a malicious agenda.
I was talking about rantuyetmai and his mental crusade in scrubbing duplicates off Danbooru. Log's fine, though I wish he'd be less hasty in deleting pools, as someone just brought up a defense for a now-deleted pool.
However, while the current batch of janitors may be careful, that doesn't mean we won't have some people with issues the next time Albert brings in new janitors.
That said, if he had the ability to, locking might have been a better option ...
I would much prefer this than completely deleting the thread, but it goes back to that whole "what is a janitor's role?" thing.
Updated
Here's my logic on deleting pools since you pointed it out.
Someone posts a link in the thread. I generally don't read the reason for linking unless I check the pool and it doesn't make sense for it to have been flagged.
I click the link and evaluate if the posts should have ever been pooled or if there's a more appropriate system in place (parenting, a simple link in the comments, a tag.)
If if it is redundant to a tag I verify everything in the pool is already tagged with said tag. If it should be simply parented I verify it is so. The comment is pretty rare but if it comes up I would either make the comment myself or upvote the comment pointing it out.
If the appropriate conditions are met I delete the pool. I try to be as objective as possible but it's not always possible so there are some old pools I refuse to even touch.
